The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Deprecated by the machine readable {{ Album cover fur}}. BJ Talk 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Another unused orphan template with a list of episodes Magioladitis ( talk) 23:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Unused orphan template with no reason to exist. Magioladitis ( talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Another unused orphan template with list of episodes. Magioladitis ( talk) 22:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Another unused orphan template with list of episodes (which are all red but one). Magioladitis ( talk) 22:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Another unused orphan template with a list of episodes. Magioladitis ( talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Conti| ✉ 16:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
At WikiProject Films, there is a discussion about succession boxes being used at the end of film articles, and the opinion seems to be to remove them. The above templates use succession box coding and are used in multiple film articles, so this would be a good start to deprecate succession boxes from film articles. I will repeat my rationale against them: Succession boxes clog the ends of film articles with information that is not directly pertinent to the topic. Any impressive box office performance, such as #1 for the opening weekend or holding onto #1 for x weeks should already be determined in the prose. In addition, previous box office leaders are not relevant, and succeeding box office leaders may or may not be relevant (relevant usurpers should be conveyed in prose anyway). The problem with these templates is that to avoid systemic bias, numerous territories need to be listed. See this particularly grotesque example. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Unused, deprecated by {{WikiProject Video games|MortalKombat=yes}}. Axem Titanium ( talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Old project template, unused for over 2 years. Axem Titanium ( talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Bot action requested. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:FF has been merged into WP:SE, bunch of old templates that were probably missed in the last clean up. Collaboration of the fortnight hadn't been used long before the merge as well. Axem Titanium ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ( talk) 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Template is now unused; it has been superseded by {{ Cathedrals of the Church of England}}, {{ Cathedrals of the Church in Wales}}, {{ Cathedrals of the Scottish Episcopal Church}}, and {{ Cathedrals of the Church of Ireland}}; all its uses have been replaced by one of those. + An gr 10:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, superseded. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
We do not need a separate navbox for every season of the UEFA Champions League. Links to the different stages of this season's competition can be found at Template:2006–07 in European Football (UEFA), and to use this navbox to interconnect A.C. Milan season 2006–07 and Real Madrid C.F. season 2006–07 is tenuous at best. – Pee Jay 09:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete per this and plethora of recent related deletion discussions. Plastikspork ( talk) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
teh keystones to the inappropriate 1632 series templates. delete. cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This template is no longer used as account creation requests now operate on a program hosted at the toolserver. GrooveDog ( talk) 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Deprecated by the machine readable {{ Album cover fur}}. BJ Talk 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Another unused orphan template with a list of episodes Magioladitis ( talk) 23:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Unused orphan template with no reason to exist. Magioladitis ( talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Another unused orphan template with list of episodes. Magioladitis ( talk) 22:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Another unused orphan template with list of episodes (which are all red but one). Magioladitis ( talk) 22:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Another unused orphan template with a list of episodes. Magioladitis ( talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Conti| ✉ 16:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
At WikiProject Films, there is a discussion about succession boxes being used at the end of film articles, and the opinion seems to be to remove them. The above templates use succession box coding and are used in multiple film articles, so this would be a good start to deprecate succession boxes from film articles. I will repeat my rationale against them: Succession boxes clog the ends of film articles with information that is not directly pertinent to the topic. Any impressive box office performance, such as #1 for the opening weekend or holding onto #1 for x weeks should already be determined in the prose. In addition, previous box office leaders are not relevant, and succeeding box office leaders may or may not be relevant (relevant usurpers should be conveyed in prose anyway). The problem with these templates is that to avoid systemic bias, numerous territories need to be listed. See this particularly grotesque example. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Unused, deprecated by {{WikiProject Video games|MortalKombat=yes}}. Axem Titanium ( talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Old project template, unused for over 2 years. Axem Titanium ( talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Bot action requested. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:FF has been merged into WP:SE, bunch of old templates that were probably missed in the last clean up. Collaboration of the fortnight hadn't been used long before the merge as well. Axem Titanium ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ( talk) 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Template is now unused; it has been superseded by {{ Cathedrals of the Church of England}}, {{ Cathedrals of the Church in Wales}}, {{ Cathedrals of the Scottish Episcopal Church}}, and {{ Cathedrals of the Church of Ireland}}; all its uses have been replaced by one of those. + An gr 10:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, superseded. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
We do not need a separate navbox for every season of the UEFA Champions League. Links to the different stages of this season's competition can be found at Template:2006–07 in European Football (UEFA), and to use this navbox to interconnect A.C. Milan season 2006–07 and Real Madrid C.F. season 2006–07 is tenuous at best. – Pee Jay 09:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete per this and plethora of recent related deletion discussions. Plastikspork ( talk) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
teh keystones to the inappropriate 1632 series templates. delete. cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This template is no longer used as account creation requests now operate on a program hosted at the toolserver. GrooveDog ( talk) 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)