The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete.Was previously nominated at MfD, but the discussion was closed due to a technicality. To quote the original nomination: "This template gives horrible advice, saying that photos must be stored in a lossy medium, instead of an appropriately lossless one for archiving. It gives no advice about quality, and could remove the original lossless photo from the use of any image editors." PlasmaDragon ( talk) 15:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Everyone seems to agree that it can be deleted eventually if no users come along to object, with varying degrees of reservation about how long to wait. Since this TFD has itself been open almost a month, and there was a previous TFD in March, I'm taking that as sufficient time. RL0919 ( talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. Previous TfD was no consensus because the template was to be substituted, but documentation has been amended and I have checked this list and see no instances of the template. Any that are there can be easily replaced. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 12:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template, should be checked for spelling, and documented/linked somewhere if it is of some use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. I've reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Lotus in F1 timeline in addition to the discussion below. Along with some editors participating below giving more extended opinions, at least two other editors in that discussion supported deletion. For {{ F1 constructors spiritual timeline}} the consensus for deletion is very clear: it is a new POV fork of the other template. The support for deleting {{ F1 constructors timeline}} was initially not as strong, but the consensus that developed is that the subject is too complicated to summarize accurately in this type of timeline, and therefore both templates should be removed in favor of textual explanations of the history. RL0919 ( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Two variations of the same/similar information. Both templates are only transcluded in one article ( Formula One). IMO, they have been the subject of an inordinate amount of discussion and angst compared to the benefit they provide. Propose they should both be deleted. Refer to WP:F1 discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please keep this, it preserves an historical continuity that would be much more difficult to document without the graphic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.8 ( talk) 15:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Basically redundant to {{ FlagPASOteam}} and {{ FlagPASOathlete}}. It was only being used on one page, so I replaced it with the equivalent expression using {{ FlagPASOathlete}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Redundant to other templates like Template:Sydney Hornsby suburbs, ... Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template, not sure this type of sidebar is desired in article space. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be redundant to {{ Philosophy of religion}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template, appears to be redundant to putting the image inside of {{ stack}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objection to deletion. Per the bot's page on Meta, it has never worked for en-wiki, but if it is ever fixed I would be happy to undelete the template. RL0919 ( talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think this bot has run since 2007. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template, not sure if it still of any use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete.Was previously nominated at MfD, but the discussion was closed due to a technicality. To quote the original nomination: "This template gives horrible advice, saying that photos must be stored in a lossy medium, instead of an appropriately lossless one for archiving. It gives no advice about quality, and could remove the original lossless photo from the use of any image editors." PlasmaDragon ( talk) 15:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Everyone seems to agree that it can be deleted eventually if no users come along to object, with varying degrees of reservation about how long to wait. Since this TFD has itself been open almost a month, and there was a previous TFD in March, I'm taking that as sufficient time. RL0919 ( talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. Previous TfD was no consensus because the template was to be substituted, but documentation has been amended and I have checked this list and see no instances of the template. Any that are there can be easily replaced. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 12:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template, should be checked for spelling, and documented/linked somewhere if it is of some use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. I've reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Lotus in F1 timeline in addition to the discussion below. Along with some editors participating below giving more extended opinions, at least two other editors in that discussion supported deletion. For {{ F1 constructors spiritual timeline}} the consensus for deletion is very clear: it is a new POV fork of the other template. The support for deleting {{ F1 constructors timeline}} was initially not as strong, but the consensus that developed is that the subject is too complicated to summarize accurately in this type of timeline, and therefore both templates should be removed in favor of textual explanations of the history. RL0919 ( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Two variations of the same/similar information. Both templates are only transcluded in one article ( Formula One). IMO, they have been the subject of an inordinate amount of discussion and angst compared to the benefit they provide. Propose they should both be deleted. Refer to WP:F1 discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please keep this, it preserves an historical continuity that would be much more difficult to document without the graphic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.8 ( talk) 15:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Basically redundant to {{ FlagPASOteam}} and {{ FlagPASOathlete}}. It was only being used on one page, so I replaced it with the equivalent expression using {{ FlagPASOathlete}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Redundant to other templates like Template:Sydney Hornsby suburbs, ... Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template, not sure this type of sidebar is desired in article space. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be redundant to {{ Philosophy of religion}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template, appears to be redundant to putting the image inside of {{ stack}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objection to deletion. Per the bot's page on Meta, it has never worked for en-wiki, but if it is ever fixed I would be happy to undelete the template. RL0919 ( talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think this bot has run since 2007. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template, not sure if it still of any use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)