- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete with no consensus on subsequent recreation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Emphasis ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned template. I queried the author if there were any plans for using it, and have not received a response, but I am willing to withdraw this nomination if there is a planned useful purpose. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I am the author of this template. Don't have time to use it in the way I planned at the moment. It is easy to recreate if and when I get around to using it. ----
CharlesGillingham (
talk)
08:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- We can userfy it to a subpage if desired. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- In light of delete proposal and creator's post, I am reusing this template for other purposes (which is how I got to this page in the 1st place).
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is the issue being identified sufficiently different from the issues identified by {{ Undue}}, {{ Undue-section}}, or {{ Unbalanced section}} in order to merit a separate template? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Template is no longer needed in competition articles MicroX ( talk) 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 Move and repurpose 1/4 and 3/4 for unicode fractions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:1/4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2/4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:3/4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:4/4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Minor use on a small number of project pages without a clear key, which wouldn't be missed. Happy to come up with a substitution strategy for existing uses. Allows for the templates {{ 1/4}} and {{ 3/4}} to be repurposed as ASCII shortcuts to the unicode fractions, as with {{ ndash}} et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete then repurpose as proposed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Move to 1/4complete, 2/4 complete, etc. These could certainly be used legitimately by somebody with an editing plan etc, and moving them would resolve this issue. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 20:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete or rename but definitely repurpose the current names. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename and keep well-used on other projects with various names; being used well on the 'small' maps project. It would certainly be missed by that project's creator :-) – SJ + 22:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 01:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Popcatwithusers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template and Category:Underpopulated Wikipedia user categories were split from {{ Popcat}} and Category:Underpopulated categories, respectively, apparently so that the use of popcat for user categories does not interfere with its primary use for article categories (" started this category so this nonsense wasn't filling one of the most OVERpopulated cats on WP!"). Although populating underpopulated categories with articles is a useful maintenance task, the same can't be said about populating user categories with user pages.
Extending the principle of popcat to user categories essentially creates a real problem (a maintenance task) in search of a solution (maintenance work by editors) in search of a not-so-real problem (underpopulated user categories). User categories are not intended to catalogue Wikipedia users in the same way that article categories are intended to catalogue Wikipedia articles, so it is entirely unnecessary to "ask users who fall within [a] category to add themselves to it" (I'm not sure how one could know who falls within a category before that person has categorized himself or herself).
User categories which are useful should be allowed to populate naturally (i.e., by interested users adding themselves), and active effort or intervention by others is not necessary. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Urrgh pointless. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete as not needed. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 19:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This template is essentially redundant to {{
Infobox islands}} or {{
Infobox settlement}}. I was attempting to rewrite the backend and ended up finding it was easier to just replace the dozen transclusions with {{Infobox settlement}}. I am happy to replace these with something else if another alternative is desired.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
17:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant. Now replaced. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. But I am not sure that it should be replaced by settlement as these are islands containing many towns/villages but can not necessarily be described as a single administrative district. But then again you can not see any settlement specific information in e.g., Eysturoy so I guess it is ok. ℚuackor 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox settlement}} says that it:
should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country
- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea District ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea Province ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused redundant templates. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete both as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete with no consensus on the utility of a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Cite gutenberg ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
9 uses; redundant to {{ Gutenberg}} (1692 uses), which attributes the source -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect one to the other, though perhaps the better name is "Cite gutenberg", and the other template should be moved on top of this one, leaving a redirect behind. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is an external link template, not a citation template. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, don't rename, just redirect then. It says it works the same way as {{
cite wikisource}} ... which does say "cite".
70.29.212.131 (
talk)
05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The parameters are not the same, thus a redirect is not useful. I will be glad to do the update. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
10:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Once you've replaced the instances, parameters won't matter, so a redirect is useful. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The parameters are not the same, thus a redirect is not useful. I will be glad to do the update. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
10:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, don't rename, just redirect then. It says it works the same way as {{
cite wikisource}} ... which does say "cite".
70.29.212.131 (
talk)
05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 will userfy upon request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Cite journal3 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused in articles; appears to be a test -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This template is an exhortation for editors. It should not be used on content categories. Content categories are for readers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- All the templates in Category:Cathead should be included. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Perennial ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Simple short text substitution -- not worth having a template for this. So far, very few articles use it. Auntof6 ( talk) 06:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per nom. I agree that this is unnecessary transclusion of article content (insertion of text by transclusion), and it should be replaced with standard piped links. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 19:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned external link table that provides search links for an eclectic set of four alternative newspapers. Given the sheer number on the "list of alternative newspapers", I don't know why these particular four are the ones selected. In any event, it doesn't appear to be in use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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. Seems unneeded. Ruslik_ Zero 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears this template is broken? It is only used in two articles, and in both places it is generating broken links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- This looks like incompetence on behalf of the site admins rather than a problem at our end, as evidently the template's author has endeavoured to correct the URL structure several times since it was created. Where permalinks may continually be altered we're actually far better having a template which will fix them all at once, although with so few uses it might not be worth the effort here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 19:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:ChefMoz2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned external link template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant to {{ ChefMoz}} (which has 3 uses) or {{ Dmoz}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:ChEBI ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Created back in 2006 and was only linked in two articles, one being ChEBI. I have replaced the other transclusion with a standard external link. It appears to be a useful database, but this template doesn't seem to have caught on. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Badly formatted as well. Links should be used and formatted as cites. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, no real use here. Avic enna sis @ 18:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete with no consensus on subsequent recreation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Emphasis ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned template. I queried the author if there were any plans for using it, and have not received a response, but I am willing to withdraw this nomination if there is a planned useful purpose. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I am the author of this template. Don't have time to use it in the way I planned at the moment. It is easy to recreate if and when I get around to using it. ----
CharlesGillingham (
talk)
08:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- We can userfy it to a subpage if desired. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- In light of delete proposal and creator's post, I am reusing this template for other purposes (which is how I got to this page in the 1st place).
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is the issue being identified sufficiently different from the issues identified by {{ Undue}}, {{ Undue-section}}, or {{ Unbalanced section}} in order to merit a separate template? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Template is no longer needed in competition articles MicroX ( talk) 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 Move and repurpose 1/4 and 3/4 for unicode fractions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:1/4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2/4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:3/4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:4/4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Minor use on a small number of project pages without a clear key, which wouldn't be missed. Happy to come up with a substitution strategy for existing uses. Allows for the templates {{ 1/4}} and {{ 3/4}} to be repurposed as ASCII shortcuts to the unicode fractions, as with {{ ndash}} et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete then repurpose as proposed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Move to 1/4complete, 2/4 complete, etc. These could certainly be used legitimately by somebody with an editing plan etc, and moving them would resolve this issue. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 20:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete or rename but definitely repurpose the current names. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename and keep well-used on other projects with various names; being used well on the 'small' maps project. It would certainly be missed by that project's creator :-) – SJ + 22:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 01:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Popcatwithusers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template and Category:Underpopulated Wikipedia user categories were split from {{ Popcat}} and Category:Underpopulated categories, respectively, apparently so that the use of popcat for user categories does not interfere with its primary use for article categories (" started this category so this nonsense wasn't filling one of the most OVERpopulated cats on WP!"). Although populating underpopulated categories with articles is a useful maintenance task, the same can't be said about populating user categories with user pages.
Extending the principle of popcat to user categories essentially creates a real problem (a maintenance task) in search of a solution (maintenance work by editors) in search of a not-so-real problem (underpopulated user categories). User categories are not intended to catalogue Wikipedia users in the same way that article categories are intended to catalogue Wikipedia articles, so it is entirely unnecessary to "ask users who fall within [a] category to add themselves to it" (I'm not sure how one could know who falls within a category before that person has categorized himself or herself).
User categories which are useful should be allowed to populate naturally (i.e., by interested users adding themselves), and active effort or intervention by others is not necessary. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Urrgh pointless. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete as not needed. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 19:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This template is essentially redundant to {{
Infobox islands}} or {{
Infobox settlement}}. I was attempting to rewrite the backend and ended up finding it was easier to just replace the dozen transclusions with {{Infobox settlement}}. I am happy to replace these with something else if another alternative is desired.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
17:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant. Now replaced. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. But I am not sure that it should be replaced by settlement as these are islands containing many towns/villages but can not necessarily be described as a single administrative district. But then again you can not see any settlement specific information in e.g., Eysturoy so I guess it is ok. ℚuackor 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox settlement}} says that it:
should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country
- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea District ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea Province ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused redundant templates. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete both as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete with no consensus on the utility of a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Cite gutenberg ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
9 uses; redundant to {{ Gutenberg}} (1692 uses), which attributes the source -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect one to the other, though perhaps the better name is "Cite gutenberg", and the other template should be moved on top of this one, leaving a redirect behind. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is an external link template, not a citation template. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, don't rename, just redirect then. It says it works the same way as {{
cite wikisource}} ... which does say "cite".
70.29.212.131 (
talk)
05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The parameters are not the same, thus a redirect is not useful. I will be glad to do the update. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
10:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Once you've replaced the instances, parameters won't matter, so a redirect is useful. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The parameters are not the same, thus a redirect is not useful. I will be glad to do the update. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
10:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, don't rename, just redirect then. It says it works the same way as {{
cite wikisource}} ... which does say "cite".
70.29.212.131 (
talk)
05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 will userfy upon request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Cite journal3 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused in articles; appears to be a test -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This template is an exhortation for editors. It should not be used on content categories. Content categories are for readers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- All the templates in Category:Cathead should be included. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Perennial ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Simple short text substitution -- not worth having a template for this. So far, very few articles use it. Auntof6 ( talk) 06:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per nom. I agree that this is unnecessary transclusion of article content (insertion of text by transclusion), and it should be replaced with standard piped links. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 19:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned external link table that provides search links for an eclectic set of four alternative newspapers. Given the sheer number on the "list of alternative newspapers", I don't know why these particular four are the ones selected. In any event, it doesn't appear to be in use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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. Seems unneeded. Ruslik_ Zero 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears this template is broken? It is only used in two articles, and in both places it is generating broken links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- This looks like incompetence on behalf of the site admins rather than a problem at our end, as evidently the template's author has endeavoured to correct the URL structure several times since it was created. Where permalinks may continually be altered we're actually far better having a template which will fix them all at once, although with so few uses it might not be worth the effort here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 19:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:ChefMoz2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned external link template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant to {{ ChefMoz}} (which has 3 uses) or {{ Dmoz}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:ChEBI ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Created back in 2006 and was only linked in two articles, one being ChEBI. I have replaced the other transclusion with a standard external link. It appears to be a useful database, but this template doesn't seem to have caught on. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Badly formatted as well. Links should be used and formatted as cites. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, no real use here. Avic enna sis @ 18:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.