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 relisted on 2013 December 16  Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:General G. O. Squier class propulsion ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 01:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Unused. Talk header now provides search ability. Magioladitis ( talk) 23:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Convert to generic searchbox, to allow searching on non-standard page names, for uses outside of User:Tony1/Styleguide draft index, and rename to say {{ searchbox}} -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 03:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Created for a discussion in 2010 that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:27, 10 December 2013 (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) 01:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:New message ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I bet this is useless now that we have New section option on the tab. The template was created in 2008 long before the new Wikipedia appearance. Magioladitis ( talk) 23:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep good for use on pages where people repeatedly toppost, also readily readable, and people use it on their user talk pages, so, if they feel like making it stand out, why not? More visible than __NEWSECTIONLINK__ tab. -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 03:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

{{ talk header}} reads "Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.". -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as redundant to {{ talk header}} and {{ message}}. I count less than 20 transclusions of this template. If there is consensus for deletion, I would be willing to tidy these up myself in due course. -- Trevj ( talk) 10:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: Don't go by current transclusion count; this is the sort of template that doesn't necessary remain on a talk page. I've seen this template used off and on for years on a variety of articles. 67.100.127.200 ( talk) 08:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Why waste time adding/removing this template, when the overall interface could accommodate such a notice (if there were to be consensus for such a proposal)? -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 08:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Could an advisory message be displayed for all pages when editing? Perhaps an edit notice, or other feature similar to those already linked to within Template:MediaWiki messages and Template:CSS and JS MediaWiki messages would cover it. Alternatively, perhaps an approporiate feature could be proposed at bugzilla (I did a quick search and didn't find anything obviously related but may have missed something). -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as redundant to other templates and features. I see little evidence that this is more useful than the alternatives. Only one regular talk page and one project page uses this -- the rest are on user talk pages, mostly of users who aren't active, and not even that many of those. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Update: I am fine with the merger idea proposed below. -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep This template can be useful (I found out about this discussion when I when looking for it). Some talk pages, such as Talk:Music of Olympia, began life lacking any structure to them. New editors benefit from a top-of-the-page notice or reminder that new talk page topics are best given their own new section. 67.100.127.200 ( talk) 08:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  That's why the New section link is there, right next to Edit. If this sort of notice is overwhelmingly helpful for new editors then it should be considered for inclusion by default on all talk pages (as part of the overall interface), rather than being selectively applied to certain talk pages. As noted above, {{ talk header}} already exists for use on pages where there is evidence that new editors require further guidance. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 08:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep was intended to get editors to notice the template .... was created because {{ talk header}} is way too bloated, thus skipped over by most. This template stands out and is why projects and pages for new editors have it. -- Moxy ( talk) 23:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  What "projects and pages for new editors" use this template? It is transcluded on exactly one project page and no help pages. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  That point has already been answered (see "Don't go by current transclusion count" above); Moxy is right, it is a useful alternative to {{ talk header}} for the purposes Moxy and other have already mentioned... 72.244.204.220 ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge with {{ New discussion}}, which is also undergoing a TfD at the moment; we need one or the other, but not both. 72.244.204.220 ( talk) 20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge per IP —PC -XT + 07:14, 13 December 2013 (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 keep for now  Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:Members of the House of Commons ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Marked as "work in progress" for more than 2 years Magioladitis ( talk) 23:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Now used, besides you can contirbute to it, if you think it needs more work. -- Rezonansowy ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

This template could potentially be useful, but at present it's not: the Conservative MPs stop at the letter E, Labour and Lib Dems are lists of Yes, Minister episodes rather than MPs at all, and other parties and independents are missing entirely. Regardless of whether it's to be deleted, it really shouldn't be used in articles while it remains incomplete. Alkari (?), 8 December 2013, 23:05 UTC

The Liberal Democrats have now been added. I'm working on the rest (unless someone else gets to it first), but I make no promises as to when this will be done. Alkari (?), 9 December 2013, 01:10 UTC

It may need some formatting or small changes, but I think it's finished enough to use, now. —PC -XT + 10:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now, as a work now in progress —PC -XT + 04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• comment: this is titled as a list of current MPs. It therefore needs to be promptly updated after each general election, and kept up to date following by-elections, etc. It should be possible to automate a lot of this work, otherwise I think it should be deleted. -- NSH002 ( talk) 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now, since there are previously uninvolved editors who are working to complete it. If it is still unused in a few months, feel free to renominate and I would have a different attitude. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:54, 10 December 2013 (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) 01:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:New discussion ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I bet this is useless now that we have New section option on the tab. The template was created in 2008 long before the new Wikipedia appearance. I checked and the banner looks useless in all cases I went through. Magioladitis ( talk) 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep good for use on pages where people repeatedly toppost, also readily readable, and projects use it on their talk pages, so, if they feel like making it stand out, why not? Much more visible than __NEWSECTIONLINK__ tab. It's been used on high-traffic article talk pages in the past, so it seems, people incorrectly post new threads on those pages (probably topposting) when they were very active. -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 03:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep used on pages for new editors to help top posting mistakes. -- Moxy ( talk) 23:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep unless all the current transclusions (there seem to be around 300 of them) can be sensibly dealt with. The template is redundant to {{ talk header}}. But it can't really be redirected there, in case that template's already in use elsewhere on the page. -- Trevj ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree that it can be replaced by {{ Talk header}}. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge with {{ New message}}, which is also undergoing a TfD at the moment; we need one or the other, but not both. 72.244.204.220 ( talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  And what if there's consensus to delete that one? -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 09:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge per IP —PC -XT + 07:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Hi. This template has 224 transclusions at the moment, which means not everyone shares nominator's feelings. I have no problem with merging {{New message}} into this template but I strongly oppose merging this template into anything else at this time. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 11:45, 13 December 2013 (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) 01:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:FS-talk ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 1 transclusion in an archive. I suggest that we subst and delee. Magioladitis ( talk) 23:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Subst and delete. Appears to be an idea floated back in 2010, that was not adopted. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:04, 10 December 2013 (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) 01:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:FormerFA2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Magioladitis ( talk) 23:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This was replaced years ago by {{ ArticleHistory}}. It was marked as historical in 2007 per this discussion, but another editor subsequently removed the tag "temporarily" and never restored it. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:43, 10 December 2013 (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) 01:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:Bounty expired ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Part of an incactove project. Only 4 transclusions. Magioladitis ( talk) 23:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No need to continue marking pages as having once been subject to bounties that haven't been offered for years. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (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 relisted on 2013 December 16  Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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) 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:Toronto-Dominion Bank ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've cleaned this one up a bit, including removal of all the external links, but the content of the navbox really should be either in an infobox, or in a "See also" section, or in a list article. In any case, most of the data are badly out of date. NSH002 ( talk) 10:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a navigation links template trying to be an infobox. It doesn't work, won't ever really work, and is less useful and less user friendly than using the actual infobox. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Reduce strip out the top section, and the bottom section becomes a standard navbox, when the extraneous text is removed. -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 03:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The relevant linkages are already provided in the {{ Infobox company}} template. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:02, 10 December 2013 (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) 01:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Unused. Wikiproject is inactive and there is not related portal. Magioladitis ( talk) 09:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment you borked the transclusion last year [1] It worked until then. -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 03:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • • Wow. Thanks. I checked and "DentPortal talk" has no other transclusions. This means no other pages were broken by my mistake. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • But how many other templates called "xyzPortalTalk" were broken by an AWB replacement of the string "PortalTalk" with the string "Portal talk", which would result in "xyzPortal talk" (as I suspect this case is the result of, since the template "PortalTalk" was replaced by "Portal talk" in the same edit)? -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wonder how many other broken tranclusions there are with that AWB action? -- 65.94.77.150 ( talk) 03:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Question - Should it be renamed to better match the portal? —PC -XT + 07:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I guess it could be renamed but I think since more generic {{ Portal talk}} exists, there is not reason for this template to exist at all. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 05:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Merge - Yeah, the only real difference is the dentistry one links to the project talk page, and the general one links to WP:WikiProject Portals. Maybe the general one could have an option to link to a project, perhaps customizing the content dispute message, if that's appropriate. If not, simply delete —PC -XT + 06:40, 7 December 2013 (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) 00:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Character template for another wiki, copied from here. The other wiki is CC-licensed and an attribution is given, so it isn't a copyright violation, but the template serves no function on Wikipedia and should be deleted. RL0919 ( talk) 04:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Wikipedia WP:NOT a game guide, a social network, a webserver for personal game stats, etc. Also {{ infobox character}} is used for characters. -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 04:07, 5 December 2013 (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) 00:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:Current-1.0COTF ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Part of an inactive project Magioladitis ( talk) 02:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Template for a project that hasn't been active since 2008 and was marked historical in February 2009. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:32, 10 December 2013 (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) 00:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:Joe 90 (TV Series) ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the episode articles have been redirected to the list article for notability and the remaining articles are all linked through the show's article and the list article. No longer serves any navigational purpose. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 02:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete per nominator. ...William 14:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I've removed all the duplicate and non-reciprocal links, and we've got next to nothing left! -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Navbox for a series that doesn't have enough closely related articles to justify a navbox. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:34, 10 December 2013 (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) 00:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Part of an inactive project, unused and... huge. Magioladitis ( talk) 00:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I've fixed the "huge" part. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Templates like this can be created if they are needed. This one has not been needed and is not needed now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unused template for a project that has been inactive since early 2007. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:36, 10 December 2013 (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) 00:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:Nom-1.0COTF ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Part of an inactive project Magioladitis ( talk) 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Templates like this can be created if they are needed. This one has not been needed and is not needed now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Template for a project that hasn't been active since 2008 and was marked historical in February 2009. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:53, 10 December 2013 (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) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Unused. Magioladitis ( talk) 00:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think if you do some slight editing, this can be used on medical articles where too many solicitations for advice occur, to emphasize what people should not be using the talk page for. It's already orange. -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 04:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete I participate in the development of health articles. I cannot imagine any place in which this template could be used in which it would be more useful than not having any template at all. Perhaps this template was originally created with the intention of eventually having it link to relevant policies, but I can think of no way to make it useful in that way or any other way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2013 (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) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Template:Close Relationships project ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused since 2008 Magioladitis ( talk) 00:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Templates like this can be created if they are needed. This one has not been needed and is not needed now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This was for a wikiproject proposed in July 2006 that was never created. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (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.