The result of the discussion was Keep and in the future, be sure to notify the author. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this really serve a navigational purpose that is worth the reader distraction? It hangs as a side-bar in a trivial number of articles, in a place where every single article it links to is already visible within the same browser window, because they are all either linked from the visible main body text, or are visible as {Main} hatnotes. I could maybe understand if it were at the bottom of articles in a horizontal format, but it isn't. I think all this template achieves is needless distraction and visual clutter, with little benefit. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Banners for an old "improvement drive" run by WikiProject Video Games. The improvement drive seems to have ended in 2006. Not to be confused with the project's ongoing "Collaboration of the Week", which has its own banner that is not nominated. RL0919 ( talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This is essentially an advert for an alternative OS for various portable devices, designed to be transcluded onto articles to create a whole new section for that purpose. I can't think of any way in which this could be modified to resolve the handful of problems this creates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Similar to {{ TEA district rating}}, which was recently deleted. Despite the format, this is not actually a navbox. It is a single piece of information, which can be more appropriately conveyed in regular text or as a single line in an infobox. RL0919 ( talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Template that links to a series of calendar pages that have not been updated since 2008. Only use is on a the page of WikiProject that appears to be inactive. RL0919 ( talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Per exactly the same reasoning as my other two nominations today: If you don't like the formatting of a template, improve it, but don't create templates that only lead to inconsistencies and confusion. The Evil IP address ( talk) 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
unnecessary navbox for as yet nonexistent Lingerie Football League team; WP:CRYSTAL. Glass Cobra 15:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
See below, per the same reasons listed at #Template:Commonsimages. The Evil IP address ( talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This template is not used 170.000+ times, it's solely transcluding another template's doc. And this is also where it starts: The template duplicates the existing, widely used {{ Commons}} and {{ Commons category}}, because the creators don't like the wording. However, in such a case, the wording of these templates should be changed and not new ones be created that confuse and lead to inconsistencies. Thus, either delink and delete or redirect to the more widely used templates. The Evil IP address ( talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Single use template which is basically redundant to {{ Historical populations}}. Since it was only being used once, I replaced it with the historical populations template in the parent United Arab Emirates article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An entire article was cut&paste moved into a template, which was then transcluded back to the original page location. Not at all how templates are supposed to be used, IMHO. TexasAndroid ( talk) 03:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep and in the future, be sure to notify the author. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this really serve a navigational purpose that is worth the reader distraction? It hangs as a side-bar in a trivial number of articles, in a place where every single article it links to is already visible within the same browser window, because they are all either linked from the visible main body text, or are visible as {Main} hatnotes. I could maybe understand if it were at the bottom of articles in a horizontal format, but it isn't. I think all this template achieves is needless distraction and visual clutter, with little benefit. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Banners for an old "improvement drive" run by WikiProject Video Games. The improvement drive seems to have ended in 2006. Not to be confused with the project's ongoing "Collaboration of the Week", which has its own banner that is not nominated. RL0919 ( talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This is essentially an advert for an alternative OS for various portable devices, designed to be transcluded onto articles to create a whole new section for that purpose. I can't think of any way in which this could be modified to resolve the handful of problems this creates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Similar to {{ TEA district rating}}, which was recently deleted. Despite the format, this is not actually a navbox. It is a single piece of information, which can be more appropriately conveyed in regular text or as a single line in an infobox. RL0919 ( talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Template that links to a series of calendar pages that have not been updated since 2008. Only use is on a the page of WikiProject that appears to be inactive. RL0919 ( talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Per exactly the same reasoning as my other two nominations today: If you don't like the formatting of a template, improve it, but don't create templates that only lead to inconsistencies and confusion. The Evil IP address ( talk) 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
unnecessary navbox for as yet nonexistent Lingerie Football League team; WP:CRYSTAL. Glass Cobra 15:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
See below, per the same reasons listed at #Template:Commonsimages. The Evil IP address ( talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This template is not used 170.000+ times, it's solely transcluding another template's doc. And this is also where it starts: The template duplicates the existing, widely used {{ Commons}} and {{ Commons category}}, because the creators don't like the wording. However, in such a case, the wording of these templates should be changed and not new ones be created that confuse and lead to inconsistencies. Thus, either delink and delete or redirect to the more widely used templates. The Evil IP address ( talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Single use template which is basically redundant to {{ Historical populations}}. Since it was only being used once, I replaced it with the historical populations template in the parent United Arab Emirates article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An entire article was cut&paste moved into a template, which was then transcluded back to the original page location. Not at all how templates are supposed to be used, IMHO. TexasAndroid ( talk) 03:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)